BALESHWAR PANDEY SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH PANDEY Vs. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.02.2004 vide annexure- 16 whereby the representation of the petitioner against deduction of 25 per cent from the pension as also recovery of Rs. 44,000/- and odd from the amount payable against the leave encashment and a few other claims were rejected.

(2.) The short fact is that by order dated 25.01.2003 vide Annexure- 12, petitioner was sanctioned payment of pension with deduction of 25 per cent as a measure of punishment. Besides the above, the challenge was against non-adjustment of the bills against traveling allowances submitted by the petitioner and non-payment of certain arrears of salary. Petitioner assailed the above action of the Board by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 417 of 2004 which was disposed of by order dated 14.01.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 280 of 2004 Mrs. Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. along with a batch of cases whereby claim of the writ petitioners was directed to be considered in terms of the previous order of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7054 of 2003. Pursuant to the above order, the impugned order, vide Memo No. 2786 dated 21.02.2004, was issued which is under challenge.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly confined his submissions against the deduction of 25 per cent from admissible pension and also the deduction of Rs. 45,389.75/- from the leave encashment amount. It is submitted that the charges against the petitioner are mainly of sending the certificates of the students with some delay and some other papers remained in the Almirah of the petitioner causing avoidable delay. The other charge was that the bill of traveling allowances for going to different examination centres carrying the question papers and answer sheets were not accounted for. It is further submitted that both the charges against the petitioner were not correct. The authority did not hold regular departmental enquiry before passing the order deducting 25 per cent of his pension, as required under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was converted into the proceeding under the aforesaid provision after his superannuation. It was vehemently submitted that after serving the charge- sheet no enquiry proceedings fixing any date for enquiry was held as required under the aforesaid Rule 43(b). Neither any witnesses were examined nor documents were brought on the record to prove the charges, as well as, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report merely on considering the show cause of the petitioner which, according to the Enquiry Officer, was found not satisfactory. It has also submitted that admittedly no enquiry report was sent to the petitioner at any point of time before passing the final order due to which petitioner suffered serious prejudice to his defence. As regards the advances given to him as traveling allowances, it is submitted that although petitioner submitted the T.A. bills, however, without verifying the record, the authorities instead of adjusting the bills have recovered the entire advance amount without providing any opportunity to explain the discrepancy, if any, detected by the authorities. Lastly, it is submitted that notwithstanding the above, even if there was any delay on the part of the petitioner, the same was due to pressure of work moreover it is not the case of the Board that it suffered any pecuniary loss due to such delay, if any. The only charge found against the petitioner is of negligence without causing any pecuniary loss and for that deduction of 25 percent of pension causing serious financial hardship to the petitioner is not justified even though in whole of his career no serious lapses were found on his part. It is accordingly submitted that the order contained in Annexure- 16, whereby the payment of pension has been deducted by 25 per cent and the claim against recovery of Rs. 45,000/- and odd have been rejected, be quashed.